Pages

Welcome to London Civic Watch

"Ever wonder if City Council is as contentious and chaotic as it is sometimes portrayed? Here you can get a progressive perspective on some of the issues from someone who spent four years in the trenches. Totally unbiased, though!Feel free to comment but keep it respectful, just like they do at council."

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Animal services contract: Round 2

Although he had been given an
additional six months to work on an agreement for the provision of
animal services, licensing and by-law enforcement manager Orest Katolyk is back on
the agenda at Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) with
a proposal in hand.

Back in September the committee had
been underwhelmed by the recommendations put before it. In a
bureaucratic shuffle, Katolyk had been handed the portfolio that had
previously resided with Environmental Services manager Jay Stanford
who had won the respect and trust of animal welfare advocates. It was
a bit of a leap from building controls to animal welfare and, not
too surprisingly, the deal that Katolyk had put forward had a
distinct sense of “control” about it rather than the “care”
model that had been promised as a result of a lively, well-attendedpublic meeting a couple of years earlier. Hence, the extra six months
to get it right.

But once a recommendation for a
contract has been given, it's hard to pull back. There's always the
risk that the lucky winner will take it amiss if expectations
generated by the staff report fail to materialize. In this case,
Katolyk had suggested that the provider of thirty years' standing,
Urban Animal Management (UAM), be kept on for another five years at a cost of nearly 3
million dollars per year.

That's a fair chunk of change, and UAM,
under the business name of London Animal Care and Control (LACC), was
not about to see it jeopardized. In fact, just to make sure that it
was on top of things, UAM had sent its lawyer to observe the most
recent meeting of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) to
make sure that nothing untoward or actionable was said. It cast a
chill over that group of volunteers whose function it is to advise
council on animal welfare matters through CPSC. AWAC had already been
warned that it could not comment unfavourably about the service
provider since that would be tantamount to interfering with a tender
in violation of the city's purchase policy.

As it turns out, however, UAM need not
have worried. Staff has not changed its position and is back with a
recommendation in favour of LACC continuing to provide the services
at least for another five years. Although the amount that staff
recommends should be paid to the pound for carrying out its existing
functions of dealing with strays, nuisance complaints, and pet
licensing is just over two and a quarter million bucks, not nearly
three, in fact, this is what LACC had asked for in the first place.
It had been staff's suggestion that LACC be given an extra $600,000
or $700,000 for some additional things like retaining the services of
a vet and doing licensing blitzes to round up unsuspecting cats and
making their owners pay for their continued survival.

All in all, there is little in the
report that addresses the concern expressed by the previous committee,
the concern that the proposal fails to move the city to a model of“care” are opposed to the current “control” approach. The
money for veterinarian services which is supposed to allow homeless
animals with minor medical problems escape the executioner's block
has simply been moved into a separate pocket awaiting the green light
from the 2014 budget discussion. There is also a proposal for
purchasing a couple of portable buildings and operating a cat
adoption program, also to go to the 2014 budget. So far, neither of
the contenders for the city contract see the proposal as a viable one
since the ongoing funding would be only $200,000 per year, less than
one-tenth of what is currently spent on the contract.

All this re-arranging of the pieces of
the puzzle makes it difficult to see what the final picture is.

One thing that it is not is a move
toward a no-kill policy. Currently, the likelihood of a cat making it
out of LACC alive are slim. The fate of the majority is death. About
500 manage to find a new home either from LACC or through the volunteer
rescue groups which LACC uses. Those groups could be seen at the
Western Fairgrounds this past weekend trying to raise money for their
humane activities, money that the city is so eager to give LACC to
“euthanize” well over a thousand cats every year.

A “no-kill” policy is not realistic
according to the staff report. However, the committee's concerns were
being taken into account. The report suggested some targets: 50% of
cats should get out alive by the end of year 3 and 70% by year 5.
It's not an ambitious target, but it at least suggests movement.

The animal rescue groups are not
thrilled. They want a much more aggressive program and better
supervision and accountability for the successful bidder. It's true
that there have been very modest gains in reducing the kill rate but
primarily because LACC no longer picks up “strays”; it deals only
with those that someone has brought in, something that many are
reluctant to do once they learn that the cat is more likely to be
destroyed than re-homed.

But the city seems wedded to the
providers of the current service. Thirty years of togetherness seems
not to have dampened the city's ardour for the for-profit business
which was, in fact, its creation. UAM had no particular credentials
for the service it provides to its only customer, the taxpayers of
London. Even some of its capital assets have been provided by us, an
unusual arrangement indeed. And it seems the city on our behalf is
prepared to go even further by preparing to enter into a Joint
Venture to create an adoption centre.

The meeting Monday evening is likely to
be another lively one, with a protest by animal welfare advocates
planned for 6 o'clock and some delegations at the 7 o'clock meeting
itself.

The composition of CPSC itself is
slightly changed with Baechler and Usher replaced by Branscombe and
Matt Brown. None of the committee members are part of the Fontana stalwarts,
and its doubtful whether that would make much difference on this
issue. The previous committee was unanimous in its concern to see a
movement to the “care” model with the mayor its most outspoken
proponent.

Whether he will find the new
recommendations more to his liking remains to be seen.

6 comments:

Anonymous
said...

The definition of "No-Kill" as used in many other cities is that 90% of animals are saved. Outside programs are needed to make that happen and the city has made a start on those, like subsidies for spay and neuter surgeries. A Trap/Neuter/Return program for stray and feral cats also help a lot.

Both programs are working here in London but need to be expanded.

The city can set a target of 90% of animals being saved to be met before the end of this contract, maybe sooner.

our blog is reflective and accurate of the state of affairs. You uncovered the flaws in this doc of control and kill. City staff have no will desire nor vision to change from their tight connections at LACC? What on earth is the tie?

I am a cat owner and animal lover. If LACC is euthanizing about a thousand cats a year, is it realistic that there are about a thousand homes a year looking to adopt a cat if we move to a "no-kill" policy?

It seems to me that there are too many cats being born. Spaying and neutering should be the priority, adoption offered for those cats in LACC's care, and unfortunately euthanizing some after a set number of cats is exceeded in LACC's care.

We need a level of pragmatism to go along with the caring and kindness of the animal lovers.